Here’s a headline I thought I’d never see. In the 60’s and 70’s we were bombarded with images like these:
Now we hear that may be a good thing. Make up your minds! Though I think oceans have a good share of the cause too. From the LA Times
Why cleaner air could speed global warming
Aerosol pollution, which is now on the downswing, has helped keep the planet cool by blocking sunlight. Tackling another pollutant, soot, might buy Earth some time.
By Eli Kintisch
You’re likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there’s a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That’s right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.
Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.
But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution — caused primarily by burning coal — climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they’ve been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.
Researchers believe greenhouse gases such as CO2 have committed the Earth to an eventual warming of roughly 4 degrees Fahrenheit, a quarter of which the planet has already experienced. Thanks to cooling by aerosols starting in the 1940s, however, the planet has only felt a portion of that greenhouse warming. In the 1980s, sulfate pollution dropped as Western nations enhanced pollution controls, and as a result, global warming accelerated.
There’s hot debate over the size of what amounts to a cooling mask, but there’s no question that it will diminish as industries continue to clean traditional pollutants from their smokestacks. Unlike CO2, which persists in the atmosphere for centuries, aerosols last for a week at most in the air. So cutting them would probably accelerate global warming rapidly.
In a recent paper in the journal Climate Dynamics, modelers forecast what would happen if nations instituted all existing pollution controls on industrial sources and vehicles by 2030. They found the current rate of warming — roughly 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade — doubled worldwide, and nearly tripled in North America.
More at the LA Times
UPDATE: 4/19 Since one professional science writer (who will remain nameless for now since I’m giving him a chance to retract his personal attack) was unable to determine that the three intro sentences I wrote were poking fun at the fact that “clean air, a problem?” was a bit of satire, I thought I should include this caveat for those unable to discern. – It’s satire.
I suppose I’ll have to make this caveat from no on, since alarmists seem to have no capable sense of humor- Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony,
Fair enough. Though it looks like the real new news in the LA Times article is the regional projections in a recent Climate Dynamics article (and the promotion of the author’s new book on geoengineering).
This might help:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html
Dave F (08:53:15) :
Might the cut in aerosols be responsible for the current warming?
Figure out how much of the “warming” is actually the abuse of the historical temperature record, and what’s left might be accounted for by that but it seems unlikely. However, add in things like soot (black carbon), possible warming from CFC’s… All of the recent long-term warming may indeed be wholly “man-made”, one way or another!
nil (01:34:29):
Follow up:
This effect was seen over 3 days and in anycase the dust in the air from the volcano should compensate you would think.
James Sexton (09:33:15):
“Sorry, I should have been more clear. Man-emitted SO2. I have no doubt there are forcings and built in climate regulators that Nature provides. So far, it is apparent that mankind doesn’t even come close to knowing all the forcings responsible, much less the physical mechanics and weights to the forcings.”
Are you insinuating that natural SO2 can affect the climate but anthropogenic SO2 can’t? The atmosphere can tell the difference? That really makes no sense at all.
To CodeTech (08:27:18) :
Asthma is a complex subject and we’re not on the same page yet. Let me try to address your legitimate concerns.
Yes, asthma incidence has about doubled in the last two decades in many western countries, not just the US (New Zealand and the UK, for example). At the same time, most pollution types have been decreasing.
The reasons for the increase in asthma incidence are complex, and I’m not an expert on it, but my reading suggests that the much tighter (more efficient) homes we started building in the late 1970s made indoor environments more consistent in temperature and humidity, good conditions for allergens such as tiny skin mites, and good for containing animal dander, also allergenic. Another possible cause for increasing asthma rates is that really young infants don’t play in dirt like they (we) did back in the day. Apparently there are harmless bacteria in dirt which “prime” an infant’s immune system. Without this priming, the immune system is overactive, leading to allergic diseases. Or so it seems…again, I’m not the expert on this.
Your point is correct that the writer is full of it when he says that sulfate pollution reduction is correlated with asthma reduction. Can’t be true, if asthma is increasing. Just another example of bad science reporting — how much have we seen? Have we seen any good investigative journalism from mainstream media?
I wasn’t addressing the issue of whether asthma rates were going down (they aren’t) in my comment, though, and I should have made it clear that I wasn’t.
I was addressing the specific type of pollution that we know causes asthma attacks to become more frequent. It isn’t that reduced sulfate causes reduced asthma. It seems to me, in my read of the science, that sulfates have little or no affect, one way or the other, on asthma. However, we do now have literally hundreds of articles suggesting that increased exposure to vehicular (mainly diesel) emissions causes increases in asthma attacks. Separately, there is also some evidence, though less of it, that exposure to heavy vehicular attacks also adversely affects lung development, and also perhaps, asthma incidence (as opposed to increased attacks for those who already have the disease).
The important thing is to understand which type of pollution harm human health. We don’t want to stop reducing those.
I hope this clears things up!
“…From the LA Times…”
meh. no need to read any further. my virtual parrot thanks you.
Johnny D (09:57:35) :
James Sexton (09:33:15):
“Sorry, I should have been more clear. Man-emitted SO2. I have no doubt there are forcings and built in climate regulators that Nature provides. So far, it is apparent that mankind doesn’t even come close to knowing all the forcings responsible, much less the physical mechanics and weights to the forcings.”
“Are you insinuating that natural SO2 can affect the climate but anthropogenic SO2 can’t? The atmosphere can tell the difference? That really makes no sense at all.”
Sure it can, just like a pebble thrown into the ocean can cause a wave. And is likely to have the same significance. But then, isn’t that the converse of the CAGW theory? It is known that naturally occurring CO2 by far exceeds the anthropogenic CO2, yet we’re told the anthropogenic CO2 is causing whatever warming may or may not be occurring. Just because a chemical compound may hold certain properties doesn’t mean we know all the dynamics involved. Just by my observations, I can say just about all we’ve learned is that we don’t really know that much regarding our climate. Its ridiculous to think we can alter it to our liking when we don’t really know how it works.
Remember, smog is local, not global. And if anthropogenic SO2 was a forcing for cooling and it is already normalizing because of man’s efforts, then it certainly was very temporary. To say nothing of China’s and India’s (and most of the 3rd and 2nd world nations) lack of emissions control. And now its a problem that we’ve magically cleaned the air too much? You can buy into if you want, but that’s an argument that truly makes no sense.
Further, if history is any indication, (and it is), then if and when we do discover ways to alter our climate, we’ll get it disastrously wrong over and over again. Here in the states, all one has to do is look at the history of man’s intervention into nature trying to make Yellowstone better. Our friends down under have a few tales to tell also. Well, just about anywhere in the world, history is replete with examples of how we get it wrong more often than not. However, in all cases, the world continued to rotate on its axis, the sun continued to shine, the rain fell and man continued on his (aimless?) path. All of this climate alarmism and the time energy and money it is usurping is a fools errand. I look forward to the day I can once again comment on the weather without concerning myself with the inane musings of a small person perceiving that we have to power of some climate god.
dang,……not “to power”, “the power”.
This is not journalism, it is satire masquerading as information. Unfortunately it is poorly written for I was unable to decide if I should laugh or cry. If the writers and editors of the LA Times wish to engage in mythology they should begin by studying the Ancient Greeks, at least they had some idea of how to do it. Now this is a democratic media and we who take the time to comment have the privilege of taking part in this farce by forming a modern version of the Greek Choirs. (I for one have never fancied myself as a singer and our collective poetry lacks meter.)
Advocating toxic pollution is absolutely not the answer.
Climate science (a field science as opposed to laboratory science with controlled experiments) and other “field sciences” are loaded with assumptions.
“Science by assumption” is not too far off the mark.
Once again we hear that “change is bad.” Except, of course, change that mankind consciously decided to make. Cleaning up air pollution was a great idea BUT it caused the planet to warm, which we didn’t anticipate, and that’s bad.
Why is that bad? Do we not have higher crop yields as a result of a longer growing season in marginal climate zones? Did we not save one case of frost bite or death from exposure? Making a distinction between mankind’s intentional effects and those unforeseen does not, in itself, distinguish good from bad. That’s not science, it’s a guilt complex.
James Sexton (11:00:50) :
“I look forward to the day I can once again comment on the weather without concerning myself with the inane musings of a small person perceiving that we have the power of some climate god.”
It’s not about having the “power of some climate god”. It’s about CO2 absorbing infrared radiation and aerosols scattering light. That’s all. Not hippy-dippy mystical stuff. No climate-god-like power needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Jimbo (09:12:04) :
“To add to the confusion not only can the Iceland volcanoe cause cooling it can also cause warming!!!”
No problem. We’ll just plug the volcanoe with a giant potatoe ;o)
John (06:59:36) :
“It’s a balance: we wanted to, and succeeded, in substantially reducing the harm from acid rain. But now we may be at a point where further sulfate reductions may no longer bring us much benefit — because acid rain is now substantially dealt with, in the US and Canada and Western Europe — but may exacerbate global warming.”
On the agricultural fields (buffered) I agree; in Poland and England
with messy old technology, the eutrophication effect was strong and
and the ash content protected e.g forests to some extent.
In Finland we did not see a strong eutrophication effect, except
quite near the emission source. Agricultural fields were systematically
limed by farmers, so there was a rise of pH over the decades. Maybe
the thread got a little mixed up, I was mainly saying that the cost of
adding some sulphur to fertilizers is heavily outweighted by the benefits
of acid rain control.
I think your formulation above, read as a whole, really sums it up well.
DCC (11:27:30) :
“Once again we hear that “change is bad.” Except, of course, change that mankind consciously decided to make.”
Yeh, I’m waiting for some announcement to the effect……..the CO2 caused the wrong kind of plant life to grow and that the “tree city USA” was too big of a success and we need to start cutting down the trees that we planted. (Which is true to the extent that many trees were planted underneath power line running parallel to the roads.)
Volcanos thow out aerosols.
Sorry, but from the independent
Every ash cloud has a silver lining (or ten) By Matilda Battersby
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/every-ash-cloud-has-a-silver-lining-or-ten-1948487.html
Check out Number 3 – The erruption of Mt “Eyjafjallajokull has arguably done more to reduce short-term emissions in a matter of days, with flight closures saving more than 1.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/every-ash-cloud-has-a-silver-lining-or-ten-1948487.html?action=Popup&ino=3
“shutting Europe’s skies for four days is estimated to have saved more than the annual emissions of around 50 developing countries, according to the Aviation Environment Federation.”
I propose: “The Extended Godzilla Theory” (h/t for original theory name proposed by Myrddin Seren here) – or, as an alternative, the “Godzilla vs. Mothra Theory”
Not only has global warming sunk to unmeasurable depths (Godzilla), ready to rise and strike Tokyo at any time… a great CAGW monster also lurks in the sky (Mothra), prevented from swooping down and reigning terror on our heads by our particulate pollution which has been keeping it at bay (I attribute this to a bad case of asthma, which as we all know is caused and exacerbated by “rotten” air). Because we also like breathing clear air, we will most likely reduce our particulate pollution to the point where Mothra will be able to enter our atmosphere – possibly by 2030.
This research seems to indicate that at some point in the future, possibly by 2030, it is likely that the tipping point could be reached. Godzilla will rise from the depths, Mothra will return, and their epic battle will most likely destroy human civilization or, at least, Tokyo.
Since my Theory is un-disprovable, I consider the results to be robust.
/sarcoff
I would think fearmongering at this level would be a little confusing to the most ardent environmentalists. Even they must now be thinking that since everything we do with best intentions supposedly only makes the “problem” worse, perhaps it is time to question the assumptions about what is really happening.
Thinking clearly is obviously difficult in such a fear-ridden climate of perceived hopeless consensus. Will a prolonged absence of predicted high sunspot activity in Cycle 24 cause much fear when the sunspots finally reappear? Instead of welcoming a future renewal of warming, will the Warmens start demanding public human sacrifices?
The ghost of Big Jim Cooley wrote: “Yes, but are you saying you believe that the crystal clear skies are as a result of volcanic ash? What I’m saying is that they as a result of no jet airliners flying. I believe (as many scientists do) that the exhuast actually causes clouds (not the only cause, of course). So no jets = only ‘normal’ clouds.
What I’m further saying is that being as we know that nighttime temperatures have risen over the past 50 years then that would beautifully explain it. During the daytime, jet-caused clouds would cool the Earth (by stopping sun radiation), but at night would keep the warmth in. This would explain why nighttime temperatures have risen. And it’s nighttime temperatures that is the cause of much of the recorded globally-high temperatures. QED, jet engines are causing global warming.”
You might be right about the crystal clear skies, I am not qualified to judge. But on the question of warming or not the problem with your theory is surely the absence of warming over the past decade at a time when air travel certainly has not diminished and probably has greatly increased.
But in a way jet-engines might well have an affect given the many temperature measurement stations located on air fields.
Patrick Davis (06:31:40) :
“mikael pihlström (05:05:32) :
The thirld world upswing is
happening now. So there would be a 25-30 year period with the
conditions described by the author exist.”
“Clearly, you’ve never been to the “third world”. Restricting “cheap” energy forces people to their only alternative, burning stuff.”
I was restricting my argument to the subject introduced by the post;
poor people “burning stuff” hurt themselves by the pollution being
at mouth level and totally uncontrolled and that is a problem, of
course. But, for the atmospheric chemistry debated it takes
industrialisation to spread the pollution from high chimneys.
And I was just saying that on a time scale, from the Western world
dominating global SO2 emissions (peak 1980s) and the Asian
dominating now there was a transition, with not low, but depressed
levels of total SO2 emissions globally, which might have relevance for
interpreting the warming.
This is scary. If taken seriously this kind of thinking will promote the concept of geo-engineering to fix the ‘problem’ and that is scientific hubris taken to its extreme, by people who are apparently not using science.
This renews the term ‘mad scientist’ in terms of potential danger.
But, it does remind me of a recent post which exposed a Spanish fraud where they were using diesel power to create ‘solar’ power.
This story suggests that it would be a great idea to use coal power – preferably extra-dirty coal with no pollution filters – to power windmills to distribute the soot… to save us.
John (10:11:38) :
The important thing is to understand which type of pollution harm human health. We don’t want to stop reducing those.
And currently our standards and loss of life models are based on
PM 10, PM5, that is size, not the damaging agent. So, there is a lot
to reserach.
James Sexton (11:00:50) :
… in all cases, the world continued to rotate on its axis, the sun continued to shine, the rain fell and man continued on his (aimless?) path. All of this climate alarmism and the time energy and money it is usurping is a fools errand. I look forward to the day I can once again comment on the weather without concerning myself with the inane musings of a small person perceiving that we have to power of some climate god.
I wouldn’t necessarily say we are aimless. Looking at it from the 50,000ft perspective, it’s not so difficult to see our course. We eat, drink, make merry – we consume resources and build to facilitate an endless expansion. If there is a hubris more pronounced than the control of the weather, it’s that we can control our own nature and stop our expansion.
Johnny D (11:38:44) :
It’s not about having the “power of some climate god”. It’s about CO2 absorbing infrared radiation and aerosols scattering light. That’s all. Not hippy-dippy mystical stuff. No climate-god-like power needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Keep in mind, that without their unproven “feedbacks” the physics imply a much less pronounced effect than CAGW Theory predicts. You are also looking at just one cog in a vast and complex system. Economics is full of proven micro theories that are useless at predicting anything in macro. One cannot assume “all other things being equal” when addressing a highly complex system – they’re not… and without that assumption – that the climate exists in a knife edge equilibrium state – there’s not a whole lot of meat on the bones for AGW.